[Pennsylvania] Gov. Rendell backs evolution

York Daily Record [Penna] ^ | 30 September 2005 | NICOLE FREHSEE

[PatrickHenry]

The Campaign to Defend the Constitution, a group organized to promote the teaching of evolution, sent letters Thursday to all 50 governors, urging them to ensure that science classes teach material based on established science.

The letters were signed by more than 100 scientists and clergy of various faiths, the group said.

Although Gov. Ed Rendell had not received the letters as of Thursday afternoon, spokeswoman Kate Philips said he is committed to the idea of teaching evolution in science classes.

Rendell "believes that (intelligent design) is more than appropriate to be taught in religion classes, but has no room in science classes in public schools," Philips said. "But this is in the court's hands now, and other than his opinion, he has no influence."

But a spokeswoman for DefCon, the group's nickname for itself, said the group hopes that after governors receive the letter, they will make a public announcement opposing the teaching of intelligent design.

"It would be nice if (Rendell) took a stance and said, whether it's in the Dover district or any other Pennsylvania district, 'We need to protect the teaching of science in our science classrooms,'" Jessica Smith said.

The group named Dover its top "Island of Ignorance" in the country. It has targeted areas in the country where it says evolution is being challenged at the state level or in public school science classrooms. They include Cobb County, Ga.; Kansas; Blount County, Tenn.; Ohio; Grantsburg, Wisc.; Alabama; Utah; South Carolina; and Florida.

Advocates of intelligent design say life is so complex that it is likely the result of deliberate design by some unidentified creator, not random evolutionary mutation and adaptation.

Critics say it is essentially creationism and violates the separation of church and state when it becomes part of a public school curriculum.

"We can do better when we let science do its job, and ask religion to do its job," former ACLU executive director Ira Glasser said Thursday, "and if there's a need for conversation, please, let's not do it in the classrooms of our children."

[Dimensio]

Your post shows that there is truly no level of dishonesty to which creationists won't sink. Do you enjoy lying?

[VadeRetro]

"Euphemism," not "synonym."

[Dimensio]

And those who believe in evolution want to put out the flame of God, so I suppose it's only fair.

This is a lie and you know it.

[mlc9852]

I didn't understand your post except the part where there is hope for me. If by that you mean that eventually I'll come to accept the theory of evolution as fact, I doubt it.

[Dimensio]

It was a post on CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS WHO BELIVED IN CREATION. It was not a post on Christian scientists who do not believe in creation.

Well then, in addition to having scientists listed who died before evolution was a formal theory in science (and don't give me crap about "evolution before Darwin" -- it was not fleshed out to the point of theory until Darwin came along), you also need to consider that if a scientist's field of study is not biology, their beliefs regarding the origin of the diversity of life on earth isn't backed by any level of authority.

What was the point of posting the list, anyway? Just to give a list of names? I can give a list of over a thousand contemporary people all working in the life sciences field who are named "Steve". What would that prove?

[Ignatius J Reilly]

So when you assert the theory of evolution was around LONG before Darwin you mean a) his grandfather wrote Zoonomia (a naturalist study and catalog) which in large part is a work about the similarities of classes of animals. and b)Dr. Hutton had a similar ideas and wrote about it in a manuscript that was NEVER published. OK thanks, I didn't know there was such a huge groundswell of evoltionary thinking and that nasty Darwin came along and stole all the credit.

[Just mythoughts]

Hey "fast eddie" I sure hope you were just listening to Rush!!! I could have made that calll.

[Quark2005]

Taken from AiG website

There's your problem. Try using a scientifically accurate source.

[Quark2005]

And I don't believe one species evolved into another.

In spite of the existing evidence, not because of it.

[mlc9852]

You enjoy your interpretation and I'll enjoy mine.

[Quark2005]

It's interesting, though, that these things, along with alchemy, were touched on in my high school and college science calsses. Of course, they weren't taught as fact but they were "taught" for the historical value. Why should creation be exempt? Mentioning it in class for the historical value is not the same as teaching it as a viable theory. If evolution is so incontrovertible, show why creation is wrong, just like alchemy or humors.

Well-stated. As an aspiring scientist and former science teacher, I would have no problem teaching about creationism in the context you just mentioned; in fact, I think it would be a very good way to teach it. (Though this would hardly cause flaring tempers to subside...)

BTW, I would never try to prove creation wrong in a science classroom- this can't be done. It is a non-falsifiable concept. I would demonstrate why it is a non-scientific model.

[doc30]

And those who believe in evolution want to put out the flame of God, so I suppose it's only fair.

That is an insult to Christians who acknowledge and accept evolution. Evolution is not trying to extinguish God. It never has and can't even approach that subject.

[mlc9852]

If you believe that, you haven't really been paying attention. The atheists want to make sure ID isn't in the schools. I'll post some examples when I have time.

[Quark2005]

You enjoy your interpretation and I'll enjoy mine.

You can enjoy any interpretation of evidence you want. But there are right ways and wrong ways to interpret evidence - both sides of every conflict do not deserve equal consideration in a science classroom.

Science teaching professionals should be allowed to do their job in the classroom, which includes teaching the theory of evolution where appropriate.

[mlc9852]

And the teaching of ID where appropriate. What are you so afraid of? The emperor has no clothes?

[doc30]

Definitely proof of evolution through sexual attraction. Good looking genes get passed down. ugly ones, well, only when seen through 2 a.m. beer goggles.

[Quark2005]

And the teaching of ID where appropriate.

I mentioned before, I'd be glad to teach honestly about ID in the classroom and why it is not a scientific theory. That is extremely appropriate. Teachers shouldn't be forced to lie to students and say that it is science when it isn't, that's all I'm afraid of.

[untrained skeptic]

" The letters were signed by more than 100 scientists and clergy of various faiths, the group said."

[sarcasm] Wow they were able to find a whole 100 Luddites that want students to be taught to regurgitate answers, not think on their own.[/sarcasm]

"Advocates of intelligent design say life is so complex that it is likely the result of deliberate design by some unidentified creator, not random evolutionary mutation and adaptation."

Some people like to act like evolution is more scientific than ID. Usually, it's done by comparing things that are of different scopes.

They'll say that ID can be used to explain anything but evolution is more specific.

However, the theory of evolution is part of a broader theory that basically says that the driving force of the universe is random chance and there is not intelligent design. That's just as provable or disprovable as intelligent design.

If you want a better comparison to wrap your mind around let's narrow ID down to the level of the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution says that species evolved due to random chance and genetic mutation. Applying the theory of ID we would say that rather than random chance, what we see as evolution is actually happening due to a design.

The fossil records do not prove or disprove either theory.

Neither theory is more provable or disprovable than the other.

Since these are theories, and not proven facts, belief in their validity requires a leap of faith.

If you really want to see a rabid evolutionist froth at the mouth, tell them that their belief that random chance and mutation are the creative force in the universe is more of a religion than a science. It's belief in something unproven, which appears to be unprovable.

It answers nearly every question you can ask, it just isn't all that convincing of an answer to many questions because it's not provable.

The theories of evolution and ID should be taught in schools. The teach us a very important lesson. They teach us that there is more about the world that we don't know than what we do know.

Examining and discussing theories logically and through the scientific method also teach us how to think critically and how to learn rather than simply how to repeat dogma.

It's important to note that the theory of evolution is more than just saying that there is evidence that life has evolved. It a theory that says that life evolved due to random chance and not anything else.

That's the part of the theory that gets evolution into the realm of being a religious theory rather than just a scientific observation.

Teaching the theory of evolution as the only credible theory is basically the state establishing a religion through our schools.

Expect evolutionist to try and combat these assertions by defining science in a way that excludes ID. They'll come up with definitions of theories that preclude ID. However, evolution will suffer the same lack of provability and dis-provability that ID faces.

That usually brings up more circular arguments which amount to defining something in such a way to try and make it exclude ID, and then using that definition as a reason to exclude ID.

It's a bunch of circular arguments that mean nothing.

The theory of evolution and ID are simply theories. They are not facts. They are ideas to consider that help you learn to question what you hold to be true.

It's human nature to resist change and be uncomfortable questioning what you hold to be true.

Teachers also don't like bringing up questions that they can't answer. It seems to have something to do with their need to exert authority. Or possibly they just never learned to think for themselves when they were in school either.

To exclude ID and teach the theory of evolution would

[Alter Kaker]

And the teaching of ID where appropriate. What are you so afraid of? The emperor has no clothes?

Not afraid of anything. Why should ID be taught? Should Marxism be taught in economics class? Should chemistry classes include an alternate interpretation discussing Aristotle's belief in four elements?

[Alter Kaker]

On another thread you made a claim about the supposed lack of evidence supporting human evolution, I refuted that claim which was patently false, and because you "didn't have time" to respond, you ran away to this thread. You're not only wrong, you're dishonest.